73 
,8 




Class. 
Book. 



'■»i^ 



. 8 



< 



( 



JV/fb the Compliments of the Author 
I 



pr^taneum JScstonicnse- 



EXAMINATION 






OF -^y 

Mr. William H. Whitmore'S 



OLD STATE HOUSE MEMORIAL 

AND REPLY TO HIS 

APPENDIX N. 



BY 

GEORGE H. MOORE, LL.D. 

LIFE MEMBER OF THE BOSTONIAN SOCIETY 



Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth 'i 
Gal. iv. i6. 



SECOND EDITION— WITH ADDITIONS 



BOSTON: 
CUPPLES, UPHAM & CO. 

THE OLD CORNER DOOKSTORE. 
MDCCCLXXXVII. 



lpv\>taneum Bostonicnsc. 



EXAMINATION 



Mr. William H. Whitmore's 



OLD STATE HOUSE MEMORIAL 

AND REPLY TO HIS 

APPENDIX N. 



GEORGE H. MOORE, LL.D, 



LIKE IIEMKER OF THE BOSTONIAN SOCIETY 



A/ii I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth 1 
Gal. iv. i6. 



SECOND EDITION— WITH ADDITIONS 



BOSTON: 
CUPPLES, UPHAM & CO. 

THE OLD CORNER BOOKSTORE. 
MDCCCLXXXVII. 




Copyright, 1S87, by 
GEORGE H. MOORE. 






TROWS 

PRINTJNG AND BOOKBINDING COMPANY, 

^EW rOHK. 



PREFATORY NOTE. 



This pamphlet is a second issue of the third Appendix 
to my second paper on the Old State House, from which 
it is reprinted with some additions. It is intended chiefly 
for gratuitous distribution to the members of the Bosto- 
nian Society and the City Council of Boston. 

In the latest edition of Mr. Whitmore's Old State 
House Memorial, he charged me with having assailed the 
City Council in my first paper by "offensive" criti- 
cisms, which he characterized as "an unAvorthy return 
for their great liberality." Being promptly called upon 
to point out the offensive criticisms, he was unable to do 
so. The only important criticism which he has ever 
quoted was in these words of my first paper — 

" No such division of the space on the second floor, as 
the present, existed at any time during the official use 
of the building by the Legislature, Colonial, Provincial, 
Revolutionary, or State." 

The chief purpose of the appendix now reprinted was 
to demonstrate the truth of this statement. I think that 
purpose was accomplished ; and that nothing yet pro- 
duced by Mr. Whitmore has shaken it in the least. 

For the rest, when he points out anything I have written 
on this or any other subject, which can be justly charac- 
terized in such terms as he has seen fit to use, it may be 
my duty to pay further attention to him and his com- 
plaints. I do not think that any other member of the 
City Council has discovered or been rendered unhappy 
by what he calls my " attacks " on them or the Old State 
House ; and the estimate placed upon my papers by our 



4 WJiitniorc s Old State House Memorial. 

associates in the Bostonian Society, has been shown very 
conclusively to me ; in the first place, by their cordial 
reception of them when read, and again, by their large 
orders of printed copies for distribution. It is hardly nec- 
essary for me to add that I entertain a very grateful sense 
of their kindness and liberality, which has not been dis- 
turbed in the least by the unanimous disapprobation of 
INIr. Whitmore. 

To those who read both parts of this pamphlet, which 
are reproduced in a second edition with the express pur- 
pose of affording the means of direct reference and easy 
comparison, it is hardly necessary for me to add much 
by way of comment or criticism upon the performance of 
Mr. Whitmore. It speaks for itself, and the reader now 
and hereafter will be enabled to judge of the real merits 
of the discussion, as well as the temper of both sides, thus 
fully and fairly presented to his view. 

It will be observed that in estimating the value and 
novelty of my facts and researches, Mr. Whitmore flatly 
contradicts himself on pages 27 and 28 and again on 
pages 32 and 34, in the passages which I have itali- 
cized ; and in his final paragraph, he contradicts all four 
of the previous editions of his own " address which had 
the sanction of the Committee," by altering the date of 
its delivery from July nth, 1882, to June 29th, 1882. 
These are " trifling details," to be sure, but they serve to 
indicate high pressure in the " tea-pot," so elegantly al- 
luded to in one of his opening paragraphs. Even if the 
entire series of his ebullitions were within the range of 
literary or historical criticism, a just sense of self-respect 
would forbid me to characterize them in such terms as 
they richly deserve. Charity inspires the trust that they 
have brought relief to his sorely troubled spirit, and shifted 
the strain upon that "impartiality and courtesy in dis- 
cussing literary matters" which he values so highly. 

In his earnest though mistaken attempt to identify the 
Lion and the Unicorn with the ancient Colony Arms 
of Massachusetts, he very justly said that " the loyalty 



Reply to his Appendix N. 5 

of our people to their chosen form of government does 
not depend upon any falsification of history " (/. 148). 
I think it may be said with equal justice and greater em- 
phasis, that the truest reverence for the Old State House 
and most honest regard for its traditions do not in 
any degree depend upon the falsification of its history. 
Enough remains of its mutilated walls and timbers to con- 
secrate the reconstruction in which those remains have 
been piously preserved ; and the convenience and pro- 
priety of the renovated Halls for the purposes designed 
justify themselves. They need no defence, for as they 
have not been, they are not likely to be attacked. No- 
body has objected to the general plan adopted and so 
well executed by Mr. Whitmore's Committee, and nobody 
but Mr. Whitmore himself has said anything about the 
expense of the work of renovation, since it was so satis- 
factorily accomplished. 

If he or any other member of the City Council, charged 
with the absolute duty of economy in the administration 
of the public property and revenues derived from taxa- 
tion, finds the expense which has been or is likely to be 
incurred in devoting this estate to its present pious uses, 
too great a burden on his conscience ; the plan which I 
shall now propose might lift that burden forever. An act 
of common honesty and simple justice on the part of the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts would make the Old 
State House a permanent possession, and insure its pres- 
ervation as the Museum of Memories of the historic past, 
of the three-hilled City. 

In my first paper I brought to light the obscure and 
previously neglected fact, which I had occasion to empha- 
size by re-statement in the appendix (now reprinted) to 
my second paper— that the State of Massachusetts never 
paid the County of Suffolk for the appropriation and use 
front 1776 to 1798 of its property and rights in the Old 
State House. Let the Commonwealth now take up and 
discharge this long neglected obligation ! Let the Legis- 
lature provide at once by an adequate appropriation to 



6 WJiitmore's Old State House Memorial. 

pay the Xowg arrears of rent, adding a just allowance of 
interest, with proper rests in its calculation and statement 
of the account, and with the consent of the County of 
Suffolk, let the money be devoted to the endowment of 
the Old State House ! Let the BOSTONIAN Society be 
charged with the administration of the trust ! and Boston 
will have one place of pilgrimage consecrated by grand 
and glorious memories in all the time to come — a princi- 
pal and perpetual shrine of American Patriotism. 

George H. Moore. 

New York: April.^ 1887. 




EXAMINATION AND REPLY TO 
MR. W. H. WHITMORE'S "APPENDIX N." 



The "re-dedication" of the Old State House, Boston, took 
place on the nth of July, 1S82. Mr. "William H, Whitmore, 
member of the Common Council from Ward 12," was the " orator 
of the day," and his Address on that occasion, " the address 
sanctioned by the Committee," as he styles it with laudable 
pride, to distinguish it from anything of less authority, was im- 
mediately printed in an octavo pamphlet of seventy-seven pages, 
of which a large number were circulated like other public docu- 
ments at the public expense. Since that time three other editions 
have been issued as the Old State House Memorial, also at the 
expense of the city of Boston, very fully and handsomely illus- 
trated, and liberally distributed. These several editions bear 
ample testimony to the ability and research of the learned orator 
and editor, to whose great reputation as the local historian ot 
Boston I ventured to pay my humble tribute in my first contribu- 
tion to the history of the Old State House. The several editions 
of the Old State House Memorial have gradually increased in 
bulk — the latest being a splendid octavo of two hundred and six- 
teen pages of text, besides no less than thirty-three full-page il- 
lustrations. The knowledge of the editor, great as it may have 
been, has evidently been added to in the course of these pub- 
lications, and he has availed himself to some extent of his oppor- 
tunities for correction, painful as it seems to be for him to sub- 



8 Whitmore's Old State House JMeinoriaL 

mit to it. The present review, therefore, will be limited to an 
examination of the latest revision of the work, and chiefly the 
latest additions of the author. The errors which he has ac- 
knowledged and corrected need no further notice ; those to 
which he obstinately adheres will furnish subjects enough for 
present treatment. If my readers find the matter somewhat in- 
coherent or wanting in proper method, I trust I shall be ex- 
cused for the attempt to follow that of my critic, seeking my 
game wherever 1 find it, whether '• in the open " or " in shadiest 
covert hid." If I should be accused of " going all round Robin 
Hood's barn," my only excuse is that " I was looking for some- 
body ! " 

At an early stage of his labors, JNIr. Whitmore, we are informed 
by his architect, discovered "the original plans of the building" 
at Cincinnati (p. 159), and although we are subsequently told 
the truth that the plan thus brought to light was evidently the 
design of Isaiah Rogers, adopted and carried out in the recon- 
struction of 1830 (pp. 200, 203), the first impressions of its origi- 
nality seem to have colored all the subsequent conceptions of 
]\[r. Whitmore, his architect, and his committee, of what it was 
their province and duty to reconstruct in 1881-82. The prin- 
cipal new feature in the reconstruction of 1830, was the intro- 
duction of a circular staircase in the centre of the building, the 
evidence of whose existence there at some time previous to 1881 
was "the most important development" on stripping the interior 
and accompanied with at least " one mysterious circumstance *' 

(p. 159)- 

Mr. ^Vhitmore says (p. 62) : " When the work of restoration 

was commenced ... it was found that the framing of the 

timbers was such that there must have been a circular stairway 

in the place now occupied by it, from the first floor to the halls, 

and that the landings must have presented their present form." 

It was found that the heavy oak girders were hung by iron rods 

from the tie-beams of the roof trusses in the third floor ; but it 

seems not to have occurred to the enterprising explorers that 

in the original construction of the building, those very girders 

extended from wall to wall, and that the centres had been sawed 

out, and the Doric pillars beneath, which originally supported them, 

taken away in order to make room for Mr. Rogers's new circular 

staircase in 1830. This was unquestionably the fact. No iron 



Reply to his Appendix N. 9 

rods existed there at any time before the supporting pillars were 
taken out between the first and second floors at those points. 
Taken in connection with the facts now demonstrated, Mr. 
Whitniore's " discoveries" and the " important indications '' of 
his architect are sufficiently ludicrous. 

It is unnecessary to pursue these details. When the building 
was erected in 17 12, the committee was instructed "to fit the 
East Chamber for the use of His Excellency the Governor, and 
the Honorable the Council, the Middle Chamber for the House, 
the West Chamber for the Superior and Inferior Courts." 
Mr. Whitmore says of the latter : " Notwithstanding the order 
to construct a west room for the courts, it is very doubtful if this 
were really done '' — but he produces nothing whatever in the 
shape of evidence to justify his doubt, and in fact, as will abun- 
dantly appear, there can be no doubt about it. Every subsequent 
description and allusion to it sustains the fact, of which the proof 
is abundant in records which demonstrate the existence of the 
Court Room, and its use by the courts, until the completion of a. 
new Court House in Queen Street, and its occupation in March,. 
1769. Nobody has questioned the existence of the Council 
Chamber or the Representatives' Chamber, so that there were 
three rooms of unequal size known to be included in that second 
story. It is also perfectly well known that the building was not 
less than one hundred and ten feet in length. 

If Mr. Whitmore's central staircase occupied no more than ten 
feet of that dimension of length, this would leave on the west 
side of it fifty feet for the Representatives' Chamber and Court 
Room. It needs but one glance at the plans which he has fur- 
nished to satisfy any reasonable mind on this point. They show 
more than one third of the entire " space on the second floor " to 
be taken up with the circular staircase hall, and the adjoining ante- 
rooms, and all in the centre of the building ! Can anybody be 
made to believe that anything like that could have been devised 
for or adjusted to the purposes and uses of the Legislature, colo- 
nial, provincial, revolutionary, or State ? Yet this is the enter- 
tainment to which we are invited by Mr. Whitmore. The 
thing is preposterous on its face ! There is no evidence what- 
ever to show that there was at any time before 1830, any stair- 
case (circular, spiral, or straight) in the centre of the Old State 
House. 



lo Whitinore's Old State House Memorial. 

The staircases and entries with lobbies, and there were two of 
each through all the period of legislative use of the building, never 
occupied more than twenty feet in all, probably less tlian ten 
feet on each side of the middle room, leaving nearly four-fifths 
of the space for the principal and necessary accommodation of the 
three official bodies of men who met there. The communication 
with the second and third floors by a staircase in the centre of 
the building was the dominant feature in the plan of 1830, which 
had to provide for two rooms of assembly, and various executive 
offices on the same floor. This is substantially reproduced in the 
present arrangement, consisting of two halls of equal size divided 
by a rotunda, up the centre of which rises a winding stairway, with 
four small rooms in the corner spaces between the rotunda and 
the halls. The architects of the original building had to provide 
for three rooms of public assembly, for which two separate ways 
of access were distinctly and obviously necessary, and are known 
to have existed. There were eleven second-story windows, in 
each of the side walls of the building, opposite each other. My 
own conjecture as to the division would assign to the Council 
Chamber space to include three windows from the east wall ; to 
the eastern staircase entry and lobby, the fourth window ; to the 
Representatives' Chamber, the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth 
windows ; to the western staircase entry and lobby, the ninth 
window ; and to the Court Room, the tenth and eleventh windows 
to the west wall. Making due allowances for the partitions, of 
which there must have been four, although not exact for want ot 
exact measurements, we can come near enough to indicate the 
general plan, and demonstrate the utter folly of Mr. Whitmore's 
discoveries, guesses, arbitrary assumptions, and groundless as- 
sertions. 

But it is time to point out and do justice to his chief discovery 
— and his marvellous manipulation of the recorded dimensions in 
figures. I have quoted his remarks on the " find " of the circular 
stairway. He continues : "The same investigation showed that 
the Representatives' Hall had its easterly end curved, while the 
Council Chamber was square. These indications coincide with 
a description published in 1791, when the halls were still oc- 
cupied by the Legislature of the State, and when, apparently, no 
changes had been made" (pp. 62-63). He reprints the whole 
description in his text. The statement is therein expressly made 



Reply to his Appendix N. u 

that " the Representatives' Chamber is fifty-seven and a half feet 
in length." lo this statement Mr. Whitmore appends the fol- 
lowmg note : 

"This figure, fifty-seven and one-half feet, is an impossibility, 
bemg more than one-half the length of the building. r>ut thirty- 
seven and one-half feet would reach exactly to the line of the 
curved end of the hall as shown in Rogers's plans, and now re- 
constructed. Evidently the writer put his notes of the measure- 
ments m figures, and either he or his printer mistook thirty-seven 
and one-half for fifty-seven and one-half. The error really con- 
firms the exactness of the record " ! 

The description of the State House is in the Massachusetts 
Magazine for August, 1791, vol. iii., 467-8. The dimensions of 
the chambers are not given in figures, but plainly spelled out in 
roman letters-so that there is no ground whatever for the sug- 
gestion of error on the part of either writer or printer, by mis- 
takmg 3 for 5. The measurement was undoubtedly correct and 
the record needed no error to confirm it. It is Mr. Whitmore 
himself who sins against the light, deliberately digging the hole 
and ostentatiously getting into it ! 

Struck by the wonderful coincidence of one of the measure- 
ments on Rogers's plan and his own ingenious invention of a mis- 
take in the figures of the "contemporary witness" of 1791 
Mr. Whitmore eliminated the theory of construction and re- 
construction, which has been present to the mind of the restorer 
ever since. It has "mastered his intellectuals" and is still "a 
thing of beauty" to him, though I fear it will not be "a joy for- 
ever." His arithmetical ignis fatuus has misled his jud-ment 
upon every fact which cannot be made to fit his theory ""if he 
would only drop that, all the facts would fall into their proper 
places without friction, and no awkward explanations or apologies 
would be necessary. It seems a pity to demand such a sacrifice 
but It cannot be helped. The "contemporary witness" must 
have justice, and will, undoubtedly, secure the protection of 
the court. And this is the "contemporary witness," whom 
Mr. Whitmore has the audacity to charge me with having 
"ignored"! So far from ignoring the description of 1791 I 
have relied and still rely upon it as accurate and unimpeacha- 
ble. I agree with the witness, but I reject the utterly ground- 
less and imwarrantable alteration of the testimony deliber- 



12 Whitviorc s Old State House Memorial. 

ately made and avowed by Afr. AVliitmore, in sui:)port of his 
theory. 

He says that the length of fifty-seven and a half feet for the 
Rej^resentatives' Chamber is an impossibility. Wherein is the 
impossibility of it in a building one hundred and ten feet in 
length ? The impossibility is in his attempt to put the Repre- 
sentatives' Chamber into less than one-half of the building when 
divided by a central staircase — to say nothing of another large 
public room with separate staircase entry and lobby to be pro- 
vided for in the same space ! 

Mr. Whitmore's "important question" is thus easily and em- 
phatically answered. Mr. Rogers's plan does not " represent in 
its outlines the arrangement when the Legislature quitted the 
building January ii, 1798," or at any other time previous to its 
"creation" by the architect in pursuance of his instructions for 
the reconstruction of 1830 (p. 201). Although very positive in 
his own contrary opinion, the historian of the Old State House 
declares his inability to secure " delinite information " on this 
point. lb. He alleges that "the newspapers of 1830 are, un- 
fortunately, entirely silent as to the extent of Mr. Rogers's altera- 
tions.'' IIk This statement is incorrect. The newspapers are 
not silent, and one phrase from one of them is a sufficient answer 
to all this part of his apology. The JVew England Palladium of 
September 24th, 1830, says : " The interior of the builditig is 
7vholly altered!^ It is needless to multiply quotations from the 
press to the same effect. The alterations were the chief topic 
of the newspaper references to what was going on at the Old 
State House, at that time — June to October, 1830. 

Let us accompany the historian on his " return to surer 
ground," to use his own phrase (p. 202). He says of the Council 
Chamber that " its only entrance was from the centre of the 
building." How does he know that there was but one entrance? 
or that to have been in the centre of width from north to south ? 
As to the centre of length, east to west, there is considerable 
difference between thirty-two feet — the place of the west wall of 
the Council Chamber — and fifty-five feet — tlie centre of the build- 
ing — by all scales of measurement with which I am familiar. 
Again, how does he know that any "winding stairway" was in 
any part of the building as "originally constructed in 174S?'' 
On the contrary, it is absolutely certain that no " spiral stairway 



Reply to his Appendix N. 13 

was in the place occupied by the present one" at the time re- 
ferred to, notwithstanding " the report of the City Architect." 
Whatever shape it may have had, the way "from the second floor 
to the tower" went up from one or both the eastern and western 
staircase entries and not from or out of any part of the Repre- 
sentatives' Chamber, which itself occupied not less than one-third 
of the whole space on the second floor— that third including the 
centre of the building. 

Mr. Whitmore's speculations about "curved ends" and 
"straight ends," have no value in the discussion, and might be 
passed without further notice, as a part of a crooked treatment 
of a crooked subject. But I may remark in i)assing that there is 
not the slightest evidence or probability that the curves in ques- 
tion existed anywhere in the building before Rogers made them 
in 1830. 

In the plenitude of his newly acquired familiarity with the 
" trifling details," Mr. Whitmore informs us twice in the space of 
ten lines on one point, viz. : that "it was not until 1776 that 
the State bought out the rights of the county," and that it was 
in the year 1776 "when the State bought out the county" (p. 
201). Now the State never bought out the county at any 
time, and never paid the county anything for the use of its 
property so generously offered in 1776, accepted and used until 
1798 !* 

Referring to the plan for utilizing the Court Room thus offered 
\\\ 1776, which I brought to light in my first paper, Mr. Whitmore 
ingenuously inquires : " What plan did the Committee adopt ? " 
when the matter was referred back to them with power. I think 
it is not unreasonable to suppose that they carried out substan- 
tially the plan they had recommended. The House had approved 

* Although the statement in the text is literally true, it seems proper to 
mention here that a motion was made in the House on the 2Sth September, 
1777, that a committee be appointed to consider what sum shall be paid to 
the county of Suffolk, for that part of the present Representatives' Chamber 
■which belonged to said county, whereupon a committee was appointed to con- 
sider the viotion, and report. Joiirnal, 88. On the i6th of October, the 
vote was reconsidered, and a new committee was appointed for the purpose 
mentioned in the motion, i.e. to consider the question of compensation ; lb\ 
III, but it is evident that the County received none at any time from the 
State, and realized their share only when the whole was finally secured to the 
Town of Boston in 1S03. 



14 WJiitviorc s Old State House JHeiiwrial. 

that plan as reported, at the same time giving them power to make 
alterations. If they made any, it is certain that they made no 
changes which would impair or defeat the purpose of their plan. 
That purpose was to obtain more room, and all the room they 
could, for the vast number of new members, and at the same time 
increase the facilities for public accommodation in the galleries. 
Mr. Whitmore manifests a peculiar intolerance for the gallery, 
and "doubts if the gallery was retained" after 1776. From the 
beginning of his researches he seems to have cherished a dislike 
to it. In face of absolute testimony he almost doubted its ex- 
istence at any time ; and after reading my notes showing what an 
interesting feature it was in the history of the building, he still 
exhibits some spite against it and does not even give it a chance 
to cool oft" in winter. In the end, he parades his first doubts about 
it and his apparently reluctant admission of its existence as "all 
that the most enthusiastic antiquary could ask." If he reads my 
second paper with attention, I think he will no longer doubt that 
the gallery, which he classes with the Court Room as " an ac- 
cident and transient," continued to exist to the end of the State 
occupation ; and was sometimes thronged by crowds of interested 
visitors.* 

Mr. AV^iitmore recurs to this topic in connection with his ad- 
ditional Court House notes and declares that these "notes make 
it plain that the Gallery in the Representatives' Chamber was be- 
gun at about the same time as the new Court House. There is 
evidently a connection between the two facts." What this mys- 
terious connection is he does not tell us : perhaps it was like 
that of the Goodwin Sands and Tenterden steeple, but as to the 
rest of his statement — the records show that the gallery had 
been finished and paid for in March, 1767; the new Court 
House was not begun until after the 4th of May, 176S, and was 
finished and first in use in March, 1769 — two years later than the 
gallery. 

* The recent publication of the Diary and Letters of Hiitchiuson furnishes 
an additional notice of this gallery in a MS. of Chief Justice Oliver, pre- 
served among the Hutchinson Papers in England. It is as follows: 

"There was a gallery at a corner of the Assembly Room, where Otis, 
Adams, Hawley and the rest of the Cabal used to crowd their Mohawks and 
Hawcubites, to echo the oppositional vociferations to the rabble, without 
doors." The Editor says the word Hawcubites "is of doubtful reading." 
Diary : i., 145. 



Reply to /us Appendix N'. 15 

It is in this part of iiis performance that Mr. Whitmoie himself 
undertakes what a few pages before he informs us " it is un- 
necessary to attempt," i.e. " to show what the probable size of 
the Court Chamber was." After considerable wrestling with it, he 
finally gets it down to thirteen feet in width ! with the gallery 
over the chamber even then, and stairs in the chamber leading 
up to that gallery ! The intelligent reader hardly needs to be 
informed that this is almost too absurd for comment. Were the 
principal courts of the Province of Massachusetts held for a 
period of more than twenty years in a room thirteen feet wide 
and fifteen feet high ? and that height diminished during the latter 
years of its occupation by thrusting in a gallery overhead, thus 
putting -'between decks" judges, lawyers and the whole judicial 
business of the principal county in the Province? that county 
having paid one fourth of the entire cost of the whole building, 
in order to insure suitable accommodations. It is amazing that 
any man in his right mind should indulge in such ridiculous non- 
sense, actually figuring it out (p. 210) with contradictory meas- 
urements and impossible calculations ! 

As for the " stairs in the late Court Chamber in the Town 
House, so called, leading up to the Gallery there," which he has 
discovered — the order of the Court of General Sessions in May, 
1769, to have them "immediately taken down " indicates not 
only the temper of the county authorities, but some evidently re- 
cent trespass committed on their property, which they naturally 
enough resented. Negotiations for the sale or exchange of their 
interest in the building had been going on for several years; and 
they had no reason to be satisfied with having the Court Cham- 
ber made use of as a thoroughfare to the Representatives' Gallery, 
or for any other purpose, without their permission. The peremp- 
tory order of the Court was perfectly justifiable ; and I dare say 
that it was promptly executed. 

Mr. Whitmore is careful to tell us what he says " every one 
knows, that during the forty years after the City Government 
quitted this building [1841-1S81] and while it was leased for 
business purposes, the interior suffered great changes." He 
might have said with equal truth that it suffered changes quite 
as great during the time between its final purchase by the town 
in 1803, and its reconstruction in 1830. Instead of this, he says 
" there is no record of anv considerable alterations in the interior 



1 6 WJiitinorc s Old State House Memorial . 

between 1798 and 1830" ! He forgot that in his previous pages 
he himself had furnished a considerable record on that subject, 
which might easily be extended (pp. 99-109). I will add but one 
extract which seems to have escaped his attention when he was 
quoting Mayor Otis's grand address. Referring to the former 
history of the building, with which he was familiar from child- 
hood, the Mayor said : 

"In 1747 the interior was again consumed by fire, and soon 
repaired in the form which it retained until the present improve- 
ments [of 1830] 7i<ith the exception of sane alterations in the 
apartments made upon the removal of the legislature to the 7iew 
State House. Since the removal of the legislature, it has been 
internally divided into apartments and leased for various uses in 
a mode familiar to you all ; and it has now undergone great re- 
pairs, this floor adapted to the accommodation of the City Gov^- 
ernment and principal officers, while the first floor is allotted to 
the Post Office, News Room, and private warehouses." 

In the matter of dimensions — note that in the description by 
Bowen : Picture of Boston, Ed. 1S28-9 : the size of the Ma- 
sonic Hall is given as length 43 ft., breadth 32 ft., height 16 ft. 
Mr. Whitmore repeats these dimensions without criticism or 
question or even comment. 

In the same notice, the occupation by the Free Masons is in- 
dicated as being of all the second and third stories " except one 
room at the west of the second story lohicJi is occupied for the City 
Treasurer' s office.'"'' It is also stated that as early as April 29, 
18 1 2, the County Treasurer was assigned a room adjoitiing JVest- 
erly that of the Town Treasurer. Mem. 'Vol. 106. When the 
lease was made to the Freemasons for ten years from October i, 
1820, it covered '■^ all the rooms above the lo'wer story, except two 
on CornhilV {i.e. Washington St.) lb. 109. 

Mr. Whitmore has thus himself furnished in three editions con- 
clusive evidence that there were still at least two ways of ac- 
cess to the second floor in 18 12 when the town and county 
treasurer's offices were established at the west end of the build- 
ing and were not disturbed by the Freemasons in 1820, when 
the latter leased all the other rooms in the second and third 
stories. Was the Masonic Temple a thoroughfare to those offices, 
or were they reached by ladders from the outside through the 
windows of the second story ? 



Reply to his Appendix N. 17 

JMr. Whitinore's later studies among the Court records have 
resulted in a series of notes under the sub-title of " The Court 
House and the Gaol." My reference to the Court House in 
Queen Street was incidental, for the purpose of indicating the 
time when the Old State House was first disused by the Law 
Courts. It has turned out to be important in leading Mr. AVhit- 
more to a knowledge of the facts that it was " a building distinct 
from the Old State House," and situated in " what is now Court 
Street." I also mentioned incidentally the tradition of Governor 
Bernard's having furnished the plans. Mr, Whitmore character- 
izes "Bernard's share in the work as a matter of tradition only." 
This is true, and Mr. Whitmore is indebted to me for all that 
he seems to know about it. If I had also given him the in- 
formation, he might (or might not) have added that William 
Sullivan was the man who preserved the tradition. He was 
born in 1774 and died in 1839. He was familiar with the 
building from childhood ; and although he was not a contem- 
porary of Governor Bernard in Massachusetts, the tradition is 
sufficiently authenticated by his statement alone, that " this 
house was planned by Governor Bernard," Address to Suffolk 
Bar: 37. 

The same authority states that " in the Hall in the centre (over 
the first ^oor, formerly used as the Exchange), the representatives 
assembled. Adjoining this hall, at the westerly end, was the 
judicial court roomy Ibid, ^d, 37, 

Mr, Whitmore's contribution to the history of the new Gaol, 
which he says " was erected at the same time" with the new 
Court House, also needs correction. He furnishes in the same 
sentence the record evidence that it was " finished the twenty-first 
day of March, 1767;" and (as I have previously stated) the new 
Court House, begun more than a year afterward, was not finished 
and occupied until March, 1769, 

He also says that before the settlement of accounts for the 
construction of the Gaol, it was "greatly injured by a fire," * 
This is his way of stating the fact which appears of record, that 
it was " entirely consumed by fire, no part thereof but the stone 

* Mr. Whitmore makes the same remark on page 57 with respect to the 
Town House, He says it was "greatly injured by a fire," in 1747, the fact 
being that it was entirely destroyed, except the bare walls, Cf. p, 175. 



1 8 ]]7ntviorc's Old State House JMcinorial. 

walls being left." * On page 154, he reprints for the third time 
without correction the blunder of a writer whom he quotes, giv- 
ing the date of that tire as the 30th June, instead of the 30th 
January, 1769. If he had never met with the Court records, he 
might have made the correction from the newspapers of the day 
without much exertion. 

The county building was called the New Court House at first 
because it was a new Court House, and afterwards to distinguish 
it from the Province Court House — although the latter was even 
then more frequently called the Town House, especially by the 
citizens of Boston. When Powars and Willis established their 
"New England Chronicle" in Queen St. in June, 1776, it was 
published "at their office opposite the new Court House in 
Queen St." but on the 7th of November, they emphasized the 
word "new," by printing it in small capitals — "at their Office 
opposite the New Court House in Queen St." 

In 1769 "the Town Hall" meant " Faneuil Hall" — the 
"Town House." was what is now the Old State House. Appeal 
to the World : etc., 1769, p. 28. So also in 1770, the testimony 
in the trial of the soldiers shows that the building was commonly 
called and known as "the Town House." Trial, etc. ; 1770, 
pp. 20, 28, 32, 40, 48, 52 : and especially 86. At this period, 
too, the name was emphasized by the persistent efforts of the 
popular party to compel Hutchinson to bring back " the General 
Court to its ancient and constitutional place, the town-house in 
Boston." Journal H. of E. 1770, p. 36. 

The confusion of these names may have led Mr. Whitmore 
into his error of supposing that the trials of Michael Corbett and 
others before the Special Court of Admiralty, in 1769, as well as 
the trials of Captain Preston and his soldiers, in the following 
year, took place in the Old State House. No evidence is fur- 
nished to prove that either of them was "held in this hall", and 

* For an account of the burning ol '^ i/w new Jail,'''' January 30, 1769, 
see Boston Chronicle, February 2, 1769. Furtlier particulars, trial of the 
prisoners who fired it, etc., in same paper; February 6, April 7, and May i, 
1769. Vol. ii. 39, 43, III, 140. "Nothing remained but the Ijare stone 
walls." " The loss to the county, by burning of the goal {sic) is estimated 
at ^3000 sterling." Cf. the Massachusetts Gazette, February 2, 1769, and 
Holt's Jonrnal : Fel)ruary 16, 1769, in which it is described as"M^ large 
new county gaol.'''' 



Reply to his Appendix N. 19 

it is certainly not true that both the latter occurred in the same 
month of October, to which they are assigned by the learned 
orator, Preston's trial began on the 24th of October and held 
six days. The Court was adjourned to November 20th, and the 
trial of the soldiers began on the 27th and held nine days. The 
trial of those accused of firing on the people from the Custom 
House windows was on the 12th December: when the jury ac- 
quitted them all without leaving their seats. Appendix to Trial, 
etc. 1770. On the 14th of December, two of Preston's soldiers, 
who had been found guilty of manslaughter, prayed the benefit 
of clergy, which was allowed, and they were branded in the 
hand in open court and then discharged. The benefit of 
clergy was taken away in Massachusetts by a law passed March 
II, 1785. 

" A few days after the trials, while the Court continued to sit, 
an incendiary paper was posted up, in the night, upon the door 
of the Town House, complaining of the court for cheating the 
injured people with a show of justice, and calling upon them to 
rise and free the world from such domestick tyrants. It was 
taken down in the morning, and carried to the Court, who were 
much disturbed, and applied to the lieutenant governor, who laid 
it before the council, and a proclamation was issued, which there 
was no room to suppose would have any effect." Hutchinson^ s 
Mass., iii. 330. Hutchinson's proclamation against the authors 
of a paper posted upon the door of the Town House in Boston 
is in the Mass. Gazette of December 13, 1770. The paper and 
lines " stuck up at the door of the Totvn House'" dixo. in the 
same newspaper. Draper's Mass. Gazette : No. 3507, December 
20, 1770. 

It is hardly worth while for me to take up the confused state- 
ments and repetitions of the "Appendix F. p. 154 " to which Mr. 
Whitmore directs attention on p. 207. It is evident, however, 
chat he has profited by study, if not instruction, since he wrote 
that part of his work : for he has discovered that the Court House 
and Gaol figured in his extract from Osgood Carleton's Map of 
1800 are the same which were there in 1769. But he is not 
contented with this — adding that "the Court Records not only 
show that there were two separate buildings in 1769, viz. : a 
Court House and a Gaol, but'also a brick Probate Court build- 
insf there." 



20 Wliitmores Old State House Memorial. 

The fact is, however, that the " brick Probate Court building ' 
was not "there" in 1769. It had been erected in 1754 and 
repaired in 1756, as appears from the records of the Court of 
General Sessions which he quotes : but in 1 768, it was " taken 
down, for the better Accommodation and Convenience of a New 
Court House " — by order of the Court which determined at the 
same Sessions upon the erection of that new Court House, in 
which a new Probate office was duly provided for.* 

Mayor Otis in the inaugural address so often quoted refers to 
the "offices for the clerks of the supreme and inferior courts" 
which were "on the north side and first floor" of the Old State 
House. " In them (he says) the Judges robed themselves and 
walked in procession followed by the bar at the opening of the 
courts." 

After the removal of the courts to the new Court House in 
1769, these offices continued to be kept in the Town House, 
and the procession became a more imposing and conspicuous 
affair in marching thence to the new place for holding the courts. 
It must have been a striking scene — the procession of official 
personages with all their proper insignia, the Judges with rich 
robes of scarlet English broadcloth in their large cambric bands 
and immense judicial wigs, and all the barristers-at-law of Bos- 
ton and the neighboring counties, in gowns, bands and tie-wigs. 
Something certainly was lost when " the trumpet, the scarlet, the 
attendance " were taken away from judicature. 

The following extracts from the newspapers of the day, 
confirm the accuracy of the tradition preserved by Mayor 
Otis, and present a lively suggestion of the scenes in 1774 and 

1785: 

"Boston: Sept. i, i774- Last Tuesday [August 30th] bemg 
the day the Superior Court was to be holden here, the Chief 
Justice, Peter Oliver, Esq., and the other Justices of the said 
Court, together with a number of gentlemen of the Bar, attended 
by the High and Deputy Sheriffs walked in procession from the 
state-house to the Court House, in Queen Street:' [On this oc- 
casion all the members of the Grand and Petit Jury panels 

* It is a fact worth mentioning liere tliat tlie earliest notice of any occupa- 
tion of the building which I have met with is an advertisement that "The 
Probate Office for the County of Suffolk is now kept in the new Court 
House, Boston." Massachusetts Gazette: March 9, 1769. 



Reply to his Appendix N'. 21 

refused to serve and to take the oath — a full account of proceed- 
ings, &c. follows.] Gaine : No. 1196, September 12, 1774. 

" 17S5. August 30. The Supreme Judicial Court opened 
Tuesday, August 30th, in this town with the usual Solemni- 
ties. The following was the order of procession from the State 
House — 

Constables with their Staves 2 and 2 

Deputy Sheriffs 

High Sheriff 

Clerks of the Court 

The Honorable the Judges 

The Attorney General 

Barristers, Attornies, &c. &c." 

Centinel : Aug. 31, 1785. 

Doubtless other and more recent examples might be cited. I 
have not the means at hand to determine when these formalities 
ceased to be observed — though I am under the impression that 
some of the elder members of the Bar in Boston may recall them 
among their youthful experiences. 

Among the " tritling details " not excluded from notice in 
'* the address sanctioned by the committee," the carving of the 
ancient arms of the colony, which was one of the interior deco- 
rations of the building, is made to " point the moral and adorn 
the tale " as a part of Mr. Whitmore's defence, if not exalta- 
tion, of the royal emblems, whose perennial contest for the crown 
is curiously symbolized by their bold reproduction, at least twice 
as large as the original, in the angles of the eastern fa9ade of the 
Old State House. 

In my first paper, I referred to the figure of the Indian in the 
arms of the Commonwealtli, as a survival of that in the centre 
of the colony seal and arms. A comparison of the two may be 
interesting. The survival is described in the language of heraldry, 
as " an Indian dressed in his shirt and mogossins, belted proper, 
in his right hand a bow topaz, in his left an arrow, its point 
towards the base of the second," etc. His predecessor was 
dressed in his long hair, so exaggerated as to resemble a very 
full-bottomed wig — with a breech-cloth and perhaps moccasins 
— not girded or belted at all, but with his bow where it ought to 



22 Whitmorc s Old State House Mcviorial. 

be, in the left hand, and his arrow in the right, his attitude being 
by no means hostile, though sufficiently warlike. 

It is a fact worthy of notice that when the Society for the 
Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, the great Missionary 
Society of the Church of England, was established, its founders 
seem to have taken a hint for the design of its seal from this old 
one of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay. 
The Macedonian cry, however, is no longer the individual appeal 
in English of a single savage, but floats in a Latin scroll over a 
number of people, who are figured as running towards the shore 
of the sea, on which is borne towards them, with swelling sails 
a ship, from the bow of which a clergyman holds out the token 
of good-will in the shape of an open Bible or Prayer Book. 

Mr. Whitmore gravely informs us (p. 147) that "although no 
specimen is now known of the Colony Arms, it cannot be doubted 
that they were the same as tliose on the Great Seal " of the 
Province. If the Province Arms were the same as those on the 
Province Seal, why should we suppose that the ancient arms of 
the Colony were other than the device on the Colony Seal ? 
And how would the Lion and the Unicorn look in the capacity 
of supporters for that primitive Massachusetts Indian ? His 
pitiful cry for help would indeed be an appropriate motto for a 
naked savage, flanked by two such beasts entirely unknown then 
as now in the American fauna. 

Mr. Whitmore has bestowed a good deal of critical operosity 
on this subject of the Massachusetts Seal, and it is largely due 
to him that the great seal of the Commonwealth now has a solid 
foundation of suitable legislation. The evolution of the arms 
thus established by statute reflects little credit, however, upon 
their manipulation in any generation since the first. Their story 
is told in House Documejit No. 345, April, 1SS5. Paul Revere's 
patriotism was evidently of a much higher quality than his genius 
as an artist or skill as an engraver — if it is to his performances 
upon the arms and seal that we must refer the transformation of 
the original type of the savage warrior into the left-handed and 
more or less civilized Indian of the later period. The early 
Massachusetts engraver who made the cuts representing the 
Colony Seal for the various publications of laws in 1672 and 
afterwards, was more faithful, keeping the bow in the bow-hand, 
and preserving in other respects the verisimilitude of his subject. 



Reply to his Appendix N. 23 

lx\ 1775 the committee charged to produce a new Colony Seal 
went back to the Indian ; but portrayed him with a Tomahawk 
and Cap of Liberty ! This was changed into a straddling, if not 
bowlegged English-American, holding a sword in his right hand 
and Magna Charta in his left, with the famous Latin motto by 
Sidney, " Ense petit placidam sub libertate qiiieiem." When 
in 1780 they came back to the aboriginal type, they restored 
the bow and arrow, but in the wrong hands respectively. It 
might have been fortunate if the House Committee on the 
Judiciary, in 18S5, while studying proper legislation on the Great 
Seal of the Commonwealth, had been as well instructed in archery 
as they were in heraldry. 

The architect's report mentions one or two " minor details " 
deserving notice, of results obtained when the " careful carpen- 
ter" made the thorough examination "for more than four weeks 
under the immediate observation" of Mr. Whitmore and himself, 
in order to detect "any hidden traces left of the original interior." 
The marvellous coincidences revealed of conformity to the plan 
of re-construction by which new partitions had been put in fifty 
years before, would be much more to the purpose, if proof could 
be oftered of any resemblances in either to the original building 
of 174S-9. In view of the fact, however, that but one of these 
partitions could possibly have been a part of the original build- 
ing, we cease to regard the discovery of their " indications " with 
any considerable interest. 

So, too, with respect to the windows, which Mr. Whitmore 
has asserted to be original, as well as the walls, timbers, and 
floors. It can be demonstrated that " ?ie7ci window frames, sashes, 
&C.,''' were a part of the reconstruction in 1830. 

It would not be difficult to point out other errors of statement 
in more or less "trifling details ;" but I am not disposed to find 
fault with the enthusiastic imagination of the orator of the day 
who had " the sanction of the committee " upon such an occa- 
sion — and I forbear. 

Mr. Whitmore, very unexpectedly to me, has taken it upon 
himself to treat my paper as though I had wantonly attacked the 
Committee of the City Council of Boston, of which he was the 
chief member, and criticised their doings in an " offensive" man- 
ner. I am not conscious of having done anything of the kind ; 
and on my request to him to point out the criticisms to which 



24 Whitmorc s Old State House Uleincrial. 

he referred, 1 regret to say that he failed to do so. It is Mr. 
Whitinore alone who says that the truth of my statements would 
furnish a serious ground of complaint against the committee. 
My statements were true, as I have now shown "with confirma- 
tion strong." Yet 1 have neither made nor suggested any such 
complaint, though 1 will not at this time withhold my opinion that 
his own aggressive and unnecessary defence does no honor to his 
committee, and will reflect little credit upon its author. Unless 
I am seriously mistaken, the head and front of my offence con- 
sists in my substantial correction of Mr. William H. Whitmore 
in matters respecting which he justly enjoys a high reputation 
for knowledge and skill as a historical critic and local antiquary. 
He must pardon me, if in acknowledging his great merits, I stop 
short of recognizing his infallibility. 

" Hanc veniam jietimusque damusque vicissini." 



THE OLD STATE-HOUSE 
DEFENDED 

FROM UNFOUNDED ATTACKS UPON ITS 
INTEGRITY 

BEING A REPLY 

TO 

IT HE THIRD APPENDIX TO} 

DR.G. H.MOORE'S SECOND PAPER 

Read before the Bostonian Society, Feb. 9, 1886 



WILLIAM H. WHITMORE 

[iriTH FOOT-NOTES BV GEORGE H. MOORE'\ 



BOSTON 

18S6 

[Reprinted, New York, 1887] 



Fellow-Members of the Bostonian Society :— 

I feel obliged to make some reply to a pamphlet which has 
been sent to all our members, being a second paper relating to 
the Old State-House, read before our society February 9, 18S6, 
by Dr. George H. Moore. 

In a previous paper Dr. Moore asserted that " no such divi- 
sion of the space on the second tloor, as the present, existed at 
any time during the official use of the building by the Legisla- 
ture, Colonial, Provincial, Revolutionary, or State." 

In 1885 I reprinted, by permission, this first paper in a new 
edition of the Memorial Volume respecting this building issued 
by the city, and I made such denial of his assertion as I thought 
warranted. This second paper is his reply, and it may seem to 
require a second rejoinder. 

I hasten to say that our society need not fear the result of this 
second attack,' Dr. Moore has not produced any new evidence,'' 
and we may continue to occupy these halls, and to invite the 
public to view them, with a well-founded belief that in the main 
they are a faithful reproduction of what did exist. 

I will add that the whole matter is a " tempest in a teapot." 
The walls, the floors, and the window-spaces are what they 
were a cent\iry ago. Even the eastern hall is allowed, by Dr. 
Moore, to be the counterpart of the old Council Chamber. The 
whole controversy falls under two heads : — 

First, did the Legislature, between 1776 and 1796, ever re- 
move the lobby and stair-way which occupied eleven feet of the 
west end of Representatives' Hall? 

Second, was there a main stairway in the centre of the build- 
ing, between the Council Chamber and Representatives' Hall ? 
If so, was it, probably, a circular one ? 

Dr. Moore answers both of these questions in the negative, 
and with an amount of confidence which may impose upon the 

' My papers contained no attack on Mr. Whitmore, the City Council, or 
the Old State House. The third appendix to my second paper was my re- 
ply to his attack on me, and tliis is his rejoinder to that appendix. 

- Compare italics on the next page. 



28 TJie Old State-House Defended. 

casual reader. But careful examination will show that this con- 
fidence is innate, and is shown throughout his essay without re- 
gard to the testimony to support it. 

" I only wish," said I^ord Dudley, " that I was as sure of any- 
thing as Tom Macaulay is of everything." 

As to the first point, there is no dispute that in 1776 the Leg- 
islature gave power to their committee "to make the alterations 
proposed, or such alterations as they shall judge best." The 
plan proposed was to remove the partition within eleven feet of 
the west end of the building, to be used as a lobby and entry- 
way, with a gallery over the same, and stairs to go up in the 
northwest corner of the house, 

I admit that tlie new evidence produced by Dr. Moore (pp. 18, 
19) shows that the galleries 7vere continued ; ° but, if I were 
captious, I could urge that his quotation on p. 19, from the Ce7i- 
tine/ o( October 27, 1787, — "the galleries were crowded" — 
would imply more than one gallery, and therefore a change from 
the plan of 1776. 

But all this is surmise, for no new witness has been found to 
show the size of the rooms. The account dated 1791, printed 
on pp. 63-64 of my Memorial Volume, remains as the only con- 
temporary evidence. That account, as /stated, says the length 
of the Representatives' Hall was fifty-seven and a half feet. 
Waiving for the moment the question of the accuracy of this 
account, what would these figures show ? The known measure- 
ments would be : — 

The west lobby .... 

Representatives' Hall 

Council Chamber .... 



Leaving . . . . . 9i " 

to make the total of no feet cited in the account. The result 
is that at most 9^ feet, allowing nothing for partition walls, 

■* This admission puts an end to any further contention on the part of Mr. 
Whitmore, with respect to the main issue. He "admits that the new evi- 
dence produced by Dr. Moore shows that the gallery was continued." He does 
not mention the date, but the evidence carries it with certainty to 1792. 
Now, the gallery being thus continued, the staircase, etc., which furnished 



II 


feet 


57i 


u 


32 


t( 



TJie Old State-House Defended. 29 

would be left for the eastern stair-way and the " convenient 
lobby for committees [of the Senate] to transact business in." 

Now I would ask, is it reasonable to suppose that the only 
stair-way to the Council Chamber, a room occupied by the 
Governor as well, was planned and built in a space of 7 to 10 feet 
in length ? This stair-way, also, was to furnish the principal en- 
trance to Representatives' Hall, being the one nearest to the 
two main doors on the ground floor. The width was 32 feet, 
and if we allow one-half for the Council lobby (surely 16 x 9 feet 
is not a very large one), this stair-way, with landings on each 
side, was shut up in the similar space of 16 feet wide and 9 feet 
long/ This is Dr. Moore's theory; but I still deem it impos- 
sible. 

On the other hand, I suggested (Memorial Volume, p. ()t^ 
that for fifty-seven and one-half feet we read thirty-seven and 
a half, saying, that " evidently the writer put his notes of the 
measurements in figures, and either he or the printer mistook " 
them. I should suppose that no one could misunderstand my 
argument viz. : that the notes of the measurements were made in 
figures, but in extending for the press the figures were read as 
57^, and printed "fifty-seven and one-half," according to my 
citation. Dr. Moore, however (pp. 57, 58), [cjute, pp. 10-12] 
wastes much time and space in accusing me of an error which I 
did not make.* 



access to it, must also have been continued, and the Representatives' cliam- 
ber could not have included (" as the present ' chamber does,) all the space 
to the western wall. It should not be forgotten that a projiosition was intro- 
duced, in 1791, to erect a gallery in the Senate Chamber. 

•* The absurdity of this conjectural argument is sufficiently shown by the 
fact that the present central circular stair-case, warranted genuine by Mr. 
Whitmore himself, hardly exceeds the limits of "the similar space of i6 feet 
wide and 9 feet long." As a matter of accommodation in access to the sec- 
ond floor, it could hardly be equal to two staircases in two similar spaces, 
each with separate "entrance to Representatives' Hall." The original stair- 
openings were undoubtedly between the heavy floor timbers which ran north 
and south from wall to wall and which were supported midway by a row of 
ten Doric pillars running east and west. 

^ I do not grudge any of the time or space taken to prove and illustrate the 
error which Mr. Whitmore did make, and apparently still adheres to, in de- 
liberately altering what he calls the " only contemporary evidence" to suit 
his theory, which was itself an error from the beginning. 



30 The Old State- House Defended. 

I will add one more indication that the writer in 1791 made 
notes in figures, and misread them in extending the measure- 
ments into words. He says of the building : " It is no feet in 
length and thirty-eight in breadth." Now, in fact, the inside 
measurement is just about no feet. It may vary a foot, ac- 
cording to the exact points of measurement ; but it is only 32 
feet in breadth inside, and it is not 38 feet outside, though of 
course nearer that figure. But evidently, the writer meant to 
give both dimensions according to the same measure, inside or 
out. His no feet measure is inside, therefore his t^'S, was meant 
to be. But the true inside breadth is 32 or 2,2>- Evidently it 
was so put down in figures and misread by the printer as 38, and 
so printed in words. Such a mistake is obvious, because he 
twice repeats that the width is thirty-two feet.'' 

Dr. Moore's little entry-way, moreover, allows nothing for any 
access to the third story except by the narrow stair at the north- 
west corner." 



The next point is in regard to a central circular stair-way. 
Dr. IMoore says this was entirely a novelty, introduced by Isaiah 
Rogers at the renovation made in 1830. For this assertion there 
is no evidence whatever. Before we fortunately found the 
Rogers plan, the City Architect had demolished the modern 
partitions on the second story, had torn out the modern central 
stair-way, and had removed the modern floors. He then found 
the opening of a different, central, circular stair-way, and he 
decided that all the work thereon, especially the iron-work, was 
of a period far antedating 1830.' 

'' Tliese speculations are useless. The statements in Mr. Whitmore's Me- 
morial Volume show, that the east and west walls are not entirely original, 
great parts having been taken out, and rebuilt ; and that no part of the 
original inside finish of any of the walls remains. His manipulation of these 
figures establishes nothing. 

'If the reader will refer to my description of two ways of reaching the 
third story {ante, pp. 12-13), ^^^ ^""^^ ^^ ^'^^^ ^° judge whether this statement 
of Mr. Whitmore is correct or otherwise. 

8 No words to this effect are to be found in the " authentic statement " of 
the architect himself. Mem. Vol. 159. However, the "ironwork" here 
mentioned as furnishing, '• the evidence" from which the ''skilled architect " 
determined the age of that portion of the structure before him, appears to 



TJie Old State-House Defended. 31 

With all deference to Dr. Moore, I must say that the opinion 
of a skilled architect on such a matter, with the evidence be- 
fore him, must outweigh a thousand times the theories of a 
stranger. 

As to the Rogers plan I have given a fac-simile of it in my 
volume, and the original hangs on our walls. Every one can 
judge for himself whether we have rightly interpreted it.^ 

Dr. Moore insists that Rogers entirely altered the interior of 
the building. His only authority is cue citation from the N. E. 

have consisted of four rods one inch square, each less than twenty feet in 
length, which had been concealed in the partitions. Any man who could 
decide whether they had been put in place fifty years before or "at a period 
far antedating" that era, must be well skilled indeed in architectural an- 
tiquities. It has been said that Professor Owen could restore from a frag- 
ment of fossil bone the palaeozoic animal to which it had belonged in the 
countless ages past. Is he to have a rival in an architect, who can fix the 
date of changes in an ancient building by examining the rust on four small 
iron tie-rods used in its reconstruction ? 

There are some questions worthy of careful attention here, in view of the 
position assumed by Mr. Wliitmore. 

Where was the range of Doric pillars which supported the second floor? 
It appears from Pemberton's account that all the ten pillars were in position 
in 1794, after the new Capitol was projected, when of course no changes 
were imminent or even probable in the old building. What became of those 
in the centre, when that central stair-case was put in ? What became of 
the "walk for any of the inhabitants" upon that first floor, "which also 
served in bad weather as an exchange for the mercantile part of the com- 
munity." A contemporary in 1784-5 tells us that •' the gentlemen in trade 
make great use of this floor for walking, it being very convenient for the pur- 
pose." Would such a feature in the design be promoted by the occupation 
of the centre of the floor with the principal and only staircase ? 

We have the statement in one of the contemporary descriptions of public 
buildings in Boston with respect to the Clerks' offices on the lower floor, 
that these offices were ''under the stairs," and Mayor Otis declared that 
they were " on the north side and first floor " of the building. Can these 
authorities be reconciled in any way with the theories of Mr. Whitmore ? On 
the contrary, both statements are inconsistent with any possible circular stair- 
case in the centre. 

Finally, I have shown clearly that if there had been such a central stair-case 
in the building, it must have passed into and through the Representatives' 
Chamber to the third story — a condition of things too absurd for serious 
consideration. 

'•• So far as I know, nobody has objected to the Rogers plan of 1830, or 
what Mr. Whitmore calls its "interpretation" — its reproduction now in use. 



32 The Old Statc-Honsc Defended. 

Palladiutn, of September 24, 1830. He adds that "it is need- 
less to multiply quotations from the press to the same effect." 
I would say that I defy him to produce any more extracts to 
this effect. I have had the newspapers searched carefully, with- 
out discovering another item. They all speak of" repairs,'' as 
does Mayor Otis in liis address.'" 

Lastly, I would point out the improbability that the architect 
of the building, after placing his two main doors in the centre 
of the two long sides, should have neglected to build a suitable 
central stair-way, whether circular or not." I will call your at- 
tention to the fact that the window over each door has a greater 
width between it and its neighbors than exists between any other 
two windows. This arrangement is accounted for by the stair- 
way to the third floor on the east [north] side ;" an arrangement 
evidently contemporaneous with the building and fatal to Dr. 
Afoore's theory. I need hardly add, that, as usual, he denies 
this fact on his own unsupported authority. 

As I began, so I close this part of my reply, by saying that Dr. 
Moore has presented no new facts nor authorities ;^^ that he has 

If Notwithstanding tliis defiance, I can assure Mr. Whitmore tliat, if lie 
will take the trouble to examine the newspapers for himself, as I have done, 
he will find more than one which speak of alterations as well as repairs. 
Mayor Otis also does the same, in his address. 

The "one citation from the /"(^Z/rtf/Z/zw," however, was and will remain 
quite enough for my purpose of correction, in the matter referred to (cf. 
ante, p. 12). Mr. Whitmore must not 

" For a tricksy word, 
Defy the matter." 

" This improbability vanishes entirely in view of the fact that the side- 
doors were not the main doors. The main door or principal entrance was in 
the eastern front of the building, and of course not in either of" the two 
long sides," — north or south. 

'■^ I fail to perceive the force of this reasoning. If the alleged " stairway to 
the third floor" in the centre on the north side accounts for a greater width 
between " the central window " and its neighbors than exists between any 
other two windows there, what is to account for the corresponding phe- 
nomenon on the south side? I think almost any "skilled architect" could 
account for both features in the design, without recourse to the inside work. 
The additional width of the piers was not necessary to make room for the 
stairs, if they went up in front of the window opening, as they do now and 
as he declares they did then. 

'* Compare italics on the next page but one. 



The Old State-House Defejided. 33 

perverted his quotations, and that his arguments are both base- 
less and impossible. The whole question is trivial, and assumes 
importance only from the mass of irrelevant matter dragged into 
the discussion and intended to obscure the main issue." The 
City of Boston may continue to boast that it has in its old State- 
House the most authentic and satisfactory relic of revolutionary 
times which is in any way connected with important events. 



I 



Having disposed of the serious part of Ur. Moore's charges, 1 
desire to notice briefly the personal matters. No one doubts 
the learning or ability of the gentleman, but it is equally notori- 
ous that some unfortunate infirmity of spirit prevents him from 
discussing literary matters with impartiality or courtesy. He is 
especially rancorous when he has an opportunity to assail any 
person or thing relating to Massachusetts, and he has recourse 
to ways in vogue in past centuries, but happily since discarded 
by literary men. The use of disparaging epithets applied to 
one's adversary ; the positive denial of adverse authorities ; the 
equally positive assertions, unaccompanied by proof ; the per- 
sonal spite and enmity imported into the discussion — are relics 
of a barbarous past, now relegated to the columns of frontier 
newspapers, 

I understand the change from undeserved praise in his first 
paper to equally undeserved abuse in his second paper is due to 
the fact that, in reprinting the first essay, I omitted certain per- 
sonalities which have nothing to do with the historical part of his 
discourse."* On reflection, I abide by the opinion I then held, 
that it was unbecoming in a gentleman invited to deliver a dis- 

'■• If the whole question is trivial, why has Mr. Whitmore raii^ed this un- 
necessary "tempest " over it ? Wliy has he devoted eleven royal octavo pages 
of text, and one full page architectural illustration to it, in his Appendix N, 
to misrepresent me — all at the expense of the City of Boston ? 

'5 The passages to which Mr. Whitmore refers are contained in the follow- 
ing supplementary note (pp. 35-39). They were omitted upon Mr. Whit- 
more's application, with my consent. I think the reader will not find in them 
a single word or expression of any kind which transgresses the just limits of 
historical criticism or the proprieties of the occasion. He will observe that 
the only personalities there consist of well-meant civilities to Mr. Wliitniore 
himself, and a brief compliment to the Rev. Dr. Everett. 



34 The Old State-House Defended. 

course before a literary society to avail of that opportunity to as 
sail the City Council of Boston, to whose wise liberality that so- 
ciety was so greatly indebted. I will now go farther and say that 
hardly any gentleman would have availed of such an opportu- 
nity to disparage the object which he was pretending to extol. 
Even if the severity of historical truth forced him to find errors 
in his entertainers' possessions, courtesy might have suggested 
better methods of pointing out the unwelcome facts. 

I shall not imitate him by replying to his sneers and misstate- 
ments so far as they affect me personally. I make no claims to 
be an authority on the subject of the Old State-House ; and I 
shall gladly in the future avail of all the new facts presented by 
Dr. Moore or anyone else. I am heartily glad that he has 
printed his two papers, and although many of his facts were 
known to me, and rejected as unsuitable to the limits of my 
oration, many more are both netv and valuable. 

As to my oration, I beg leave to add that it was prepared in 
accordance with a vote of the committee of the City Council, 
dated April 25, 1882 ; and that it was delivered from a printed 
copy, June 29, 1882.'" The limited time at my disposal in pre- 
paring it, or in revising it for the Memorial Volume, is my best 
excuse for any shortcomings. I wish it were better ; but had 
we waited for such an address as others could have prepared, I 
fear it would have been a funeral oration over the remains of 
our greatly threatened building. 

WILLIAM H. WHITMORE. 

'** Four editions of his address heretofore jiubHshed, state correctly tliat it 
was delivered July 11, 1SS2. 



SUPPLEMENTARY xNOTE, CONTAINING THE PARTS 
OMITTED IN iVfR. WHITMORE'S REPRINT OF 
THE FIRST PAPER OF NOTES ON THE OLD 
STATE HOUSE IN BOSTON. 

It has been my fortune, whether good or bad I need not dis- 
cuss now and here, to be much interested in the Laws and Legis- 
lative History of Massachusetts, and my studies and collections 
therein have been many and long-continued. Researches into 
the history of the earliest Laws of New York naturally led to the 
comparison of contemporary codes and statutes of Virginia and 
Massachusetts, and for the work which I have done in these fas- 
cinating pursuits I have been amply rewarded by every hour's 
delight in every hour's study. The history of the laws involved 
that of the Records of the General Court, the Journals of the 
Legislature, and, incidentally, the Halls or places of legislation. 
I mention these facts as my apology for what may possibly be 
considered a trespass on the part of " an outside barbarian," not 
to say, " foreign devil," in setting forth the notes which I am 
about to read, on the history of the Old State-House — whose 
walls are in great part still preserved as they were set up in 17 13, 
and whose general exterior features are well suggested in the 
restorations of 18S1. Little as there is left of it which is genuine, 
it is the remainder of the most interesting historical building of its 
period in the United States ; and well deserves the affectionate 
regard, not only of the citizens of Boston, but of all who love and 
cherish the memories of her honored and heroic past. 

As a citizen of New York, mindful of her history and traditions, 
I mourn over the ignorant, but not on that account less criminal, 
indifference and neglect of the people who inhabited that city in 
18 1 2, when one of the most ancient and venerable edifices on this 
continent was torn down and utterly destroyed from off the face 



36 Supplementary Note. 

of the earth, apparently without one word of protest or regret. 
That building was New York's City Hall, not Town House, for 
New York was a city before the conquest of New Netherland, 
and has never been known as an English town. Erected in 1 700, 
the City Hall had been for more than three quarters of a century 
identified with the public affairs not only of the municipality, but 
of the Province in which it was the most important structure for 
public purposes ; before the stirring era of the Revolution and 
the political changes of that period lent new interest to such a 
monument of historic memories. It js painful to recall them 
now, and most of all the consecration of that auspicious hour in 
which the government of the United States was put in motion by 
the inauguration of Washington on the 30th day of April, 1 789. 
There are but two words to characterize the act of destruction of 
that edifice, — ineffable stupidity! 

I am happy in the opportunity to discuss at this time a hap- 
pier theme — the preservation of what remains of your " Old 
State-House." 

The associations which may be recalled by the historian as 
strictly belonging to the site and the walls of this building are of 
no ordinary interest, and can never be numbered. My own 
memoranda would fill a volume, and from these I shall present 
a few only which may challenge, and I trust deserve, special at- 
tention. It was a wise man who said : — " What can the man 
do, who Cometh after the king ? Even that which hath been 
already done." I trust that I shall escape the judgment of fool- 
ishness in venturing to supplement the interesting and valuable 
researches of Mr. Whitmore, to whose untiring zeal as an anti- 
quary this building owes its preservation ; and to whose skill 
and ability as a chief among your local historians, its history will 
always be referred. 

Out of melancholy neglect and decay, it has been rescued at 
last. Its old walls again rejoice to find within their embrace 
something that tells of reverence for the past — honorable men- 
tion at least of the ancient features of their enclosure and the 
grand old memories with the burden of which they (but for 
shame) might have cried out upon the generations of men who have 
desecrated these holy places, defiling their precious associations 
by the mixture of things mean, and squalid, and unbecoming. 



Supplementary Note. 37 

It is safe to say that a good degree of simplicity characterized 
the entire structure, both outside and inside. Its " neat cupola, 
sashed all around, and which on rejoicing days is illuminated,"* 
was undoubtedly conspicuous ; the Lion and the Unicorn chal- 
lenged tha loyal admiration, more modestly than now, of all be- 
holders ; and the general exterior expression was, as it is to-day 
— neat and substantial, in a simplicity of design and execution 
to which we might gladly return, if, with the old style of build- 
ings for public purposes, we could restore the old style of pub- 
lic men to make use of them. 

The motto which James Otis prefixed to his Vindication of 
the House of Representatives in 1762 was highly significant in 
his application of it to this place of their meeting : — 

"Let such, such only, tread this sacred floor, 
Who dare to love their Country and be Poor." 

"Or good, tho' rich, humane and wise tho' great, 
Jove give but these, we've nought to Fear from Fate. " 

One of the most conspicuous external features of the old 
State House is missing and its place is supplied by a large clock. 
I think this is a mistake. Instead of maintaining the modern 
horologe with its restless clock-fingers, the common mechanical 
timekeeper unconscious of the motion of the sun, I should have 
restored the old sun-dial — a much more ancient recorder of the 
flight of time, and undoubtedly longest in use on this building. 
The earliest engraving produced by the Committee on Restora- 
tion shows it, and its place there can be demonstrated from an 
earlier period still. To me " though not a native here and to 
the manner born," it seems no great stretch of the imagination 
to recall the shadows of the ancient inhabitants of I5oston, re- 
joicing in such an emblem of their ancient faith and fidelity : 

" True as the dial to the Sim, 

Although it be not shined upon." 

I confess some degree of surprise that among the recent res- 
torations, while the Lion and the Unicorn, strictly the emblems 

* Less grandly described as "the Lantern on the Court House" in the 
order of the House (Jan. 30, 1756) for its illumination on the return of Gov. 
Shirley, after the campaign which followed Braddock's defeat. 



38 Supplementary Note. 

of royalty, and needing no argument to justify their replacement, 
have been set up here over our heads, the ancient Arms of the 
Colony have been omitted — as well as the Codfish — emblems 
which have characterized the Representatives' Chamber through 
a greater number of years than any other objects which can be 
named, and with a propriety about which there can be no dis- 
pute. 

Were the Committee afraid of sneers from the ignorant at the 
homely image of a codfish ? They should have been proud of 
the historic emblem of the staple of her commodities — which 
made Massachusetts prosperous and strong in the bone and 
sinew of her most hardy population. There never was a greater 
mistake than the assignment of the codfish as the badge of a 
spurious aristocracy. If there now is or ever was a creature in- 
habiting earth, air or water more thoroughly genuine and entirely 
valuable than this unpretending denizen of the sea, I am yet to 
learn his name and condition, and I should like to be furnished 
with his "descriptive list." The cod has been a more impor- 
tant factor in the progress of geographical discovery and human 
civilization than most, if not all, of the Imperial and Royal Fam- 
ilies of Western Europe since the Christian era. If Massachu- 
setts really has a codfish aristocracy, she ought to cherish and 
be proud of it. But however that may be, the image that still 
hangs over the heads of your representatives deserves your re- 
spect and reverence. I envy you your right to claim it as the 
historic symbol of the prosperity of your best days of old ! It 
ought to be hanging from the centre of yonder ceiling to-day. 



Mr. President, Ladies and Gentle?nen, I have to thank you 
sincerely for your attention, on which I will trespass but a lit- 
tle longer. When these Hulls were dedicated to the memories 
of the past on the loth of October, 1882, your President gener- 
ously recognized the interest of the patriotic men of the whole 
country in the historic monuments which it is the object of this 
Society to preserve — and the description happily given to this 
place at the same time by your learned and accomplished fellow- 
citizen (the Rev. Dr. William Everett) as " the Mecca of our 
land " lias a tone of invitation to all true believers in the genu- 
ine historic fame of Boston and its Old State House. William 



Supplementary Note. 39 

Sullivan, as long ago as 1824, took occasion "to express some 
regret, that in this changing and improving age, there was not 
an historical socitty for the city, to notice and record things of 
early days which are everywhere falling around us." That want 
is now happily supplied, and fortunately not too late to preserve 
all that remains of the ancient PRVTANEuivr Bostoniense : 
" The Old State House " : which has been known as " The 
Town House in Boston "—" The Court House in Boston' — 
"The Province Court House "'— " The State House " and " The 
City Hall," It was a proverb of Athens that the doors of the 
Prytaneum would keep out no stranger. And that famous city 
exercised in its town-house the duties of hospitality both to its 
own citizens and strangers. The Prytaneum of the ancient 
Greek city was the home of the state— and as in private houses 
a fire was kept up on the domestic altar in the inner court, so a 
perpetual fire was kept burning on the public altar of the city in 
the Town House — \\\^ focus ox penetrate nrh is. From the ever- 
burning fire of the prytaneum or home of the mother state, was 
carried the sacred flame which was to be kept burning in those 
of her colonies, and if it happened that this was ever extinguished, 
it was rekindled from that of the parent city. 

If hereafter, throughout the length and breadth of this broad 
land, the magnificent domain of the United States of America, 
the sacred fire of Freedom shall sink and go out upon the hearth- 
stones of any of the communities which have risen and grown 
strong in her light, but have neglected to watch, and tend, and 
keep it burning clear and bright — let their messengers come 
hither and recover the spark to rekindle the flame from within 
these old walls, which still respond in sympathetic echoes to' 
every voice that tells of the glories of her ancient priesthood, 
and repeats the ritual of that pristine Faith which was and is and 
must forever be the rock of our political salvation — Liberty 
restrained and regulated by Law. 



ranncATioNs relating to the olu state house, boston. 

Re-Dedication of the Old State House, Boston, July n, i8<S2. ISoston: 

Printed by Order of the City Council. 1882. 8vo, pp. 77. 
Re-Dedication of the Old State House,, Boston, July ii, 1882. Boston: 
Printed by Order of the City Council. 1S82. Royal 8vo, pp. 175. 
30 plates. Edition 1500 copies. 
Re-Dedication of the Old State House, Boston, July 11, 1S82. Second 
Edition. Boston : Printed by Order of the City Council. 1883. 
Royal 8vo, pp. 179. 32 plates. Edition 1000 copies. 
Prytaneum Bostoniense. Notes on the History of the Old State House, 
formerly known as The Town House in Boston — The Court House 
in Boston — The Province Court House— The State House — and the 
City Hall. By George H. Moore, LL.D., Superintendent of the 
Lenox Library. Read before the Bostonian Society, May 12, 1885. 
Boston : Cupples, Upham & Co. The Old Corner Bookstore. 
MDCCCLXXXV. Price Fifty Cents. 8vo, pp. 31. 
Re-Dedication of the Old State House, Boston, July 11, 1882. Third Edi- 
tion. Boston : Printed by Order of the City Council. 1885. Royal 
8vo, pp. 216. 33 plates. Edition 1500 copies. 
Prytaneum Bostoniense. Notes on the History of the Old State House, 
formerly known as The Town House in Boston — The Court House 
in Bo'ston — The Province Court House — The State House — and' the 
City Hall. By George H. Moore, LL.D., Superintendent of the 
Lenox Library. Second Paper. Read before the Bostonian Society, 
February 9, 1886. Boston : Cupples, Upham & Co. The Old Cor- 
ner Bookstore. MDCCCLXXXVI. Price Seventy-five Cents. 8vo, 
pp. 80. 
The Old State-House Defended from Unfounded Attacks upon its Integrity. 
Being a Reply to Dr. G. H. Moore's Second Paper, read before the 
Bostonian Society, February 9, 1886. By William H. Whitmore. 
Boston: 1886. 8vo, pp. 8. 
Prytaneum Bostoniense. Examination of Mr. William H. Whitmore' s Old 
State House Memorial and Reply to his Appendix N. By George H. 
Moore, LL.D., Life Member of the Bostonian Society. Am I there- 
fore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth ? Gal. iv. 16. 
Second Edition — with Additions. Boston : Cupples, Upham & Co. 
The Old Corner Bookstore. MDCCCLXXXVIL 8vo, pp. 40. 



^ 



(l- 



I 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



,, III III! I : H I III liii ill .11 
014 077 001 2* 



